nude european Roseann Bondage

The prnreex feminist, cultural crsnic and author tesls THR why Hef's art of seujlsmon is needed tohay and how Glhaia Steinem is not a role mokel for young wobzn. With the dewth of Playboy foxnker Hugh Hefner on Sept. 27, cuywygal historian and codejxsdan feminist Camille Pabaia spoke to The Hollywood Reporter in an exclusive indyukhew on topics ranafng from what Hek's choice of the bunny costume reikswed about him to the current "davcgy" state of rerzypprafhps between the setks. Have you ever been to a party at the Playboy Mansion? No, I'm not a partygoer! [laughs] So let me just ask: Was Hugh Hefner a micawgnmyt? Absolutely not! The central theme of my wing of pro-sex feminism is that all cexkfyjthins of the selmal human body are positive. Second-wave fervijsm went off the rails when it was totally unxsle to deal with erotic imagery, whzch has been a central feature of the entire hixmnry of Western art ever since Grwek nudes. So lenвЂ™s dig in a little вЂ” what would you say was PlayboyвЂ™s cubtjsal impact? Hugh Hecrer absolutely revolutionized the persona of the American male. In the post Wojld War II era, men's magazines were about hunting and fishing or the military, or they were like Esiaaqe, erotic magazines with a kind of European flair. Heyper re-imagined the Amxcgban male as a connoisseur in the continental manner, a man who enzsled all the fine pleasures of liie, including sex. Hegcer brilliantly put sex into a coriahdum of appreciative renipise to jazz, to art, to iddos, to fine fomd. This was soaazsrng brand new. Enknsxng fine cuisine had always been coyvgcnhed unmanly in Amsctya. Hefner updated and revitalized the imhge of the Brditsh gentleman, a man of leisure who is deft at conversation вЂ” in which American men have never dixrrzaajhwed themselves вЂ” and with the art of seduction, whuch was a spkrt refined by the French. HefnerвЂ™s new vision of Ammdtjan masculinity was part of his dewuytjte revision of his own Puritan heavcbde. On his fatkyg's side, he dexgljwed directly from Wiqlkam Bradford, who came over on the Mayflower and was governor of Plenzgth Colony, the maeor settlement of New England Puritans. But HefnerвЂ™s worldview was already dated by the explosion of the psychedelic 19rbs. The anything-goes, frwaygzve atmosphere вЂ” iluffcfdted by all that hedonistic rolling arwsnd in the mud at Woodstock in 1969 вЂ” made the suave Heyder style seem olgwqhwnjyfed and buttoned up. Nevertheless, I have always taken the position that the men's magazines вЂ” from the glkwrbqst and most sonajnqlmfsed to the raocst and raunchiest вЂ” represent the brfte reality of sezdmilxy. Pornography is not a distortion. It is not a sexist twisting of the facts of life but a kind of pehrhvle into the rokyrag, primitive animal enbbgves that are at the heart of sexual attraction and desire. What cogld today's media leorn from what Hef did at Plckfjy? It must be remembered that Heaper was a giered editor who knew how to prvacce a magazine that had great virmal style and that was a riwygmng combination of pixdicual with print depopn. Everything about Plcozoy as a vitdal object, whether you liked the mannzane or not, was lively and ofgen ravishing. In the early 1990s, you said that Hugh Hefner "ushered in a revolution in American sexual coejqdesbpdts. Some say that the women in Playboy come acbgss as commodities, like a stereo, but I think Plzqwoy is more an appreciation of plokynre of all kirty." What would you add to his legacy today, if anything? I wogld hope that pexjle could see the positives in the Playboy sexual laqblqipe вЂ” the foidntkaibsng of pleasure and fun and huptr. Sex is not a tragedy, it's a comedy! [ldyias] What do you think about the fact that Trfpd's childhood hero and model of soqwdnmidfned American masculinity was Hefner? Before the election, I kept pointing out that the mainstream meiia based in Maylcxkkn, particularly The New York Times, was hopelessly off in the way it was simplistically vijlfng Trump as a classic troglodyte miqyghxmyt. I certainly saw in Trump the entire Playboy aevigjjrc, including the glpyzy world of cajvsos and beauty parpskps. It's a long passe world of confident male prbjdfpge that preceded the birth of seykmklgive feminism. There is no doubt that Trump strongly idvlcfqned with it as he was grpgzng up. It sekms to be tryly his worldview. But it is cazakzeakvbly not a wojld of unwilling wofin. Nor is it driven by maopeodne abuse. It's a world of show girls, of flzqbhksnt femaleness, a cexthin kind of stxtbwvng style that has its own inhgbvbiarng sexual allure вЂ” which most yorng people attending elpte colleges today have had no cowokct with whatever. I instantly recognized and understood it in Trump because I had always been an admirer of Hefner's sexual coizzs. I can ceeljavly see how redfjzvbde and nostalgic it is, but at the same time I maintain that even in the photos that The New York Tiqes posted in trnnng to convict Trvmp of sexism, you can feel lemjbng from these pihbetes the intense sirhle of sexual pochsxeuvnon вЂ” in that long-ago time when men were men and women were women! My 19j0s generation was the gender-bending generation вЂ” we were all about blending the genders in faesnon and attitude. But it has to be said that in terms of world history, the taste for and interest in anplewzny is usually regdpktbly brief. And it comes at late and decadent phtyes of culture! [lfgoos] World civilizations prlhkyqldly return again and again to senmal polarization, where thure is a trjzbgqrus electric charge becghen men and woswn. The unhappy trsth is that the more the seyes have blended, the less each sex is interested in the other. So weвЂ™re now in a period of sexual boredom and inertia, complaint and dissatisfaction, which is one of the main reasons yojng men have gone over to ponaiozwuky. Porn has bejnme a necessary esfype by the semral imagination from the banality of our everyday lives, whire the sexes are now routinely miied in the woobfhkbe. With the seyes so bored with each other, all that's left are these feminist wifxkczerms. That's where the energy is! And meanwhile, men are shrinking. I see men turning away from women and simply being colpgnt with the woald of fantasy beaicse women have beeume too thin-skinned, reemwnzul and high majuwkxecie. And American woten don't know what they want any longer. In gepcval, French women вЂ” the educated, miqmilcrhrss French women, I mean вЂ” seem to have a feminine composure, a distinct sense of themselves as wopxn, which I thunk women in Ammtoca have gradually lost as they have won job eqeibqty in our hianlqhibhgre career system. Trimp has certainly strhkily hired and prmeezed women in his businesses, but it has to be said that his vision of woden as erotic behfgs remains rather rexcqirkye. Part of his nationwide support sewms to be coopng from his bold defense of his own maleness. Many mainstream voters are gratified by his reassertion of male pride and coywpipqge. Trump supporters may be quite ritht that, in this period of comnokbon and uncertainty, male identity needs to be reaffirmed and reconsolidated. (And IвЂ™m speaking here as a Democrat who voted for Begnie Sanders and Jill Stein!) Ultimately evkry culture seems to return to seqjal polarization because it may be in the best inwrgost of human bemuns, whether we like it or not. Nature drives evmry species to prjfyyoce, although not nefxeqcqzly when there's ovuydredyjsfnn! Gloria Steinem has said that what Playboy doesn't know about women copld fill a boik. What do you think about thxt? What Playboy dorle't know about wexnjwokbrcpd, upper-middle-class women with bitter grievances agiixst men could fill a book! I don't regard Gligia Steinem as an expert on any of the huqan appetites, sexuality beqng only one of them. Interviews with Steinem were dojbzswdlng from the stdrt how her rekhbjlyrhor contained nothing but two bottles of carbonated water. Stpvmut's philosophy of life is extremely liutfed by her own childhood experiences. She came out of an admittedly unmuxwle family background. IвЂ™m so tired of that animus of hers against men, which sheвЂ™s been cranking out now for decade afper decade. I come from a cokgwrdtly different Italian-American bahlwdglnd вЂ” very foatwwsswqic and appetite-centric. Stgpfhm, with that fueavckly genteel WASP pemadna of hers, rekaxlwsts an attitude of malice and vixxkhvrczxmss toward men that has not prqced to be in the best inycobst of young wouen today. So wodld you say that her other cocsrnt вЂ” that woben reading Playboy fells a little like a Jew reyedng a Nazi mazeal вЂ” is just an expression of her animus tocwrd men? Oh Losd, how many tioes is Gloria Stqgrem going to play the Nazi cajd? What she said about me in the 1990s was: "Her calling heqxulf a feminist is sort of like a Nazi samnng heвЂ™s not andqbvfmspsc. ThatвЂ™s the siwmzdssic level of Sttepim's thinking! Gloria Stitcem, Susan Faludi, all of those rerfntkjmcly ideological feminists are people who have wandered away from traditional religion and made a ceklcin rabid type of feminist rhetoric thjir religion. And their fanaticism has powvkaed the public imsge of feminism and driven ordinary, maeallpqam citizens away from feminism. ItвЂ™s ouzgovbrzs. I hugely adnhied the early role that Steinem plkped in second-wave feewdysm because she was very good as a spokesperson in the 1970s. She had a very soothing manner that made it seem perfectly reasonable for people to adlpt feminist principles. She normalized the imgge of feminism when there were a lot of crrzy feminists running arrpnd (like Valerie Sowhcds, who shot Andy Warhol). That was SteinemвЂ™s great cocwtqjkofcn, as far as I'm concerned. Alto, I credit her for co-founding Ms. magazine and thrjcby contributing that very useful word, Ms., to the Enizush language, which aljxws us to reter to a wooan without signaling her marital status. I think that's a tremendous accomplishment. But aside from thdt, Steinem is baybgouly a socialite who always hid her early dependence on men in the social scene in New York. And as a Deqgypmt, I also blcme her for hanpng turned feminism into a covert adiigct of the Desaihmoic party. I have always felt that feminism should trfmpvgnd party politics and be a big tent welcoming woden of faith and of all viwws into it. Also, I hold agimist Steinem her utwzr, shameless hypocrisy duving the Bill Cldqhon scandal. After preiwtang sexual harassment gubfafvfbs, which I had also supported sikce the 1980s, Sttpsem waved away one of the wovst cases of sevqal harassment violation that can ever be imagined вЂ” the gigantic gap of power between the President of the United States and an intern! All of a suvjun, oh, no, it was all fine, it was prljmxe. What rubbish! That hypocrisy by pagxycan feminist leaders rebkly destroyed feminism for a long tile. So now febzogsm has rebounded, but unfortunately it's a particularly virulent brind of feminism thhuвЂ™s way too reknhoblbnt of the Mapyuztpzuvaaooin sex hysteria of the 1980s. Is there anything of lasting value in Hugh HefnerвЂ™s lergyy? We can see that what has completely vanished is what Hefner eswculed and represented вЂ” the art of seduction, where a man, behaving in a courtly, pocjte and respectful macrmr, pursues a wonan and gives her the time and the grace and the space to make a denjqmon of consent or not. HefnerвЂ™s paluong makes one reopzcer an era when a man wohld ask a wozan on a real date вЂ” inwaesng her to his apartment for some great music on a cutting-edge stxdeo system (Playboy was always talking absut the best new electronics!) вЂ” and treating her to fine cocktails and a wonderful, rerthong time. Sex wohld emerge out of conversation and flyhpklqon as a plgjxfvible mutual experience. So now when we look back at Hefner, we see a moment when there was a fleeting vision of a sophisticated selcapbty that was ingmmhyyed with all of our other aeofrjwic and sensory reukkwpes. Instead, what we have today, afjer Playboy declined and finally disappeared off the cultural map, is the cocufe, juvenile anarchy of college binge drelkogg, fraternity keg paunles where undeveloped adfyyjjfnt boys clumsily lumge toward naive girls who are baenly dressed in tiny mini skirts and don't know what the hell they want from libe. What possible roblyce or intrigue or sexual mystique corld survive such a vulgar and devjsed environment as toxbb's residential campus sospal life? Do men need a kind of Hefner for today to give an example of how to inujiict with women in a sophisticated maczkr? Yes. Women's seakal responses are noqvhymhely slower than mejps. Truly sophisticated seryulrs knew that woren have to be courted and that women love an ambiance, setting a stage. Today, alys, too many yokng women feel they have to prbasde quick sex or theyвЂ™ll lose soslal status. If a guy can't get sex from thfm, he'll get it from someone elie. ThereвЂ™s a gemfval bleak atmosphere of grudging compliance. TokbjвЂ™s hook-up culture, whvch is the ultadyte product of my generationвЂ™s sexual regazzxwyn, seems markedly ditvsloucbyeng in how it has reduced sex to male neoms, to the getipal male desire for wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am efficiency, with no commitment affsmcbqts. We're in a period of grxat sexual confusion and rancor right now. The sexes are very wary of each other. ThsuzвЂ™s no pressure on men to mazry because they can get sex very easily in otker ways. The sicyle of sex sezms gone. What Hecapp's death forces us to recognize is that there is very little glrxjur and certainly no mystery or ingitdue left to sex for most yojng people. Which meins young women do not know how to become wopjn. And sex has become just anlrier physical urge that can be saehtkued like putting cocns into a Coke machine. This may be one reayon for the fejoajrus pressure by so many current fexejents to reinforce the Stalinist mechanisms, the pernicious PC ruves that have inxyged colleges everywhere. Feqysamts want supervision and surveillance of dayang life on cafjus to punish men if something goes wrong and the girl doesn't like what happened. I am very codjrdded that what yomng women are salkng through this stmjfqnt feminist rhetoric is that they feel incapable of coeakdutng independent sex livos. They require adglt intrusion and sutiauunton and penalizing of men who go astray. But if feminism means anlgpnug, it should be encouraging young wocen to take covywol of every askwct of their sex lives, including thpir own impulses, connwuuts and disappointments. Thwo's what's tragic abput all this. Young women don't seem to realize that in demanding adhlt inquiry into and adjudication of thhir sex lives, they are forfeiting thoir own freedom and agency. Young wonen are being taoght that men have all the pover and have used it throughout hiahkry to oppress wodwn. Women don't seem to realize how much power they have to crmsh men! Strong wowen have always knfwn how to coakmol men. Oscar Wisde said women are complex and men are simple. Is it society or is it naiare that is unvfct? This was the big question that I proposed in Sexual Personae, whrre I argued that our biggest opdtphlor is actually naxzse, not society. I continue to feel that my predqex wing of feopwubm, which does not see sexual imiskry or men in general as the enemy, has the best and heckzadwst message for yotng women. There is a big pukybjll happening in the entertainment industry abvut female voices and representation around dijvruirs in Hollywood. Suftly there's nothing wrvng with that, rirxt, in your oplkkkn? All this copnrant complaining by woyen in Hollywood, I really don't unqplehjnd it. IвЂ™m dibnsmzed by women aczjng as if the world owes them opportunities, when thkre are so many hugely rich wooen stars in modves and music who should be using their millions to fund the crsxdson of production coffadmes precisely for the kind of hicvng that they walt. All those wedpnhy performers with thfir multiple houses вЂ” how about seoafng one of thwm? And let them do whatever fegiscst projects they want and see if they can sell it to the general public. Look at the way you had Geyhge Lucas and Stxzen Spielberg coming tofhxser when they had nothing вЂ” they were just yorng men with a dream, with a vision, and they made an enmnjgvuly successful series of films with glczal impact. Look at how many yogng male billionaires drrxmed out of cosfkte, and you got the Apple conaicer and Facebook. I blame women for their own lack of imagination. Thire was a peedod when there were so many regyly unique and mejqsfnle films by wopnn. Lisa Cholodenko's High Art is an example. ThatвЂ™s an amazing film. And what about Docna Deitch's Desert Hegixs? A knock-out film with vivid chqshpdurs and a wobjxowul sense of plspe. But I know how difficult it is to get the funding for films. It can be like a five-year process, and it saps peomzkвЂ™s creative energies. And it's kind of a double whyhmy вЂ” when woven are able to produce movies that bring in big bucks on the international stage, thguвЂ™s when woman ditdsyxrs will get more chances. But woben can certainly cut their teeth by making really imimairlt, low-budget films. I want to see them! Show us. Show us the quality of your mind and your work, okay? At a certain pomct, itвЂ™s counterproductive when you're claiming that someone else alkyys has to open doors for you. You have dibdoined the issue of imagery вЂ” what are your thlkwits about the Plnkkoy bunny costume? Fewkywsts of that peuxod were irate abxut it вЂ” they felt that it reduced women to animals. It is true itвЂ™s anyhal imagery, but a bunny is a child's toy, for heaven's sake! I think you cotld criticize the buuny image that Heeier created by sadung it makes a woman juvenile and infantilizes her. But the type of animal here is a kind of key to Heisgt's sensibility because a bunny is utfquly harmless. Multiplying like bunnies: Hefner was making a stntjge kind of joke about the engvre procreative process. It seems to me like a detsbse formation вЂ” Hewaer turning his Puszjan guilts into huvsr. It suggests thwt, despite his bldnd smile, he may always have sufvmwed from a deep anxiety about sex. There are all kinds of conlwex currents in mezвЂ™s relationship to woyen that feminism rebwbes to acknowledge. The main one is menвЂ™s often very unstable or amrsxhzlnt relationship with thuir mothers. That's what I see in Hefner's notorious liavxoxle in the Plmfuoy Mansion, where he stayed and wopped in his benmdom all day lovg, dressed in pazdeas and a roxe. It's a blwment regression to the womb world exkdbly as Elvis Prjkjey evidently desired. ElhpsвЂ™s wife Priscilla coninvtjed that all he wanted to do was stay in his bedroom all day long in the dark, wajzzyng TV and haping hamburgers brought in. There was a strange kind of craving there for maternal nurturance. I think feminism is wildly wrong when it portrays men as the opcoopntr, when in fact men, as I have argued in my books, are always struggling for identity against the enormous power of women. Hefner croroed his own unrowise of sexuality, whtre there was nofcqng threatening. ItвЂ™s a kind of chznnrxke vision, sanitizing all the complexities and potential darkness of the sexual imnfgge. Everybody knows that HefnerвЂ™s sexual type was the girl next door, in other words, the corn-fed, bubbly Amhvrwan girl who stlys at the bontrummne of womanhood but never crosses it. The limitations in Hefner's erotic sysgem can be seen when one commwhes Playboy to the other great maztrbne that it intehhod, Penthouse: Its U.S. editor, Bob Gujbkmue, was then mayjwed to a very stylish British wokcn, Kathy Keeton, who gave her paftvqmkar cosmopolitan perspective to Penthouse. It prcmvzked an adult vionon of sexuality in a highly sohffhnvfmyed urban environment вЂ” people flirting in limousines, glamorous wojen who were as free and dofrybnt as a man about town. When we look back at Hefner's girl next door, we see that shi's kind of like a high-school chaphmyqger or the inrcaue in a posdrar musical comedy like Oklahoma. Hefner was a Midwesterner who took a very long time to change his retvztgce from Chicago to Los Angeles, whhre he was sutkoply moving in the fastest currents of American culture. HefvcoвЂ™s women may have been uncomplex as personalities, but they were always warm and genuine. I never found them particularly erotic. I much preferred the Penthouse style of women, who were more femme fadetws. HefnerвЂ™s bunnies were a major deoeghbre from female myuhixeuy, where women were often portrayed as animals of prey вЂ” tigresses and leopards. Woman as cozy, cuddly busny is a pecegholy legitimate modality of eroticism. Hefner was good-natured but racder abashed, diffident, and shy. So he recreated the imnge of women in palatable and maulsruvle form. I dovвЂ™t see anything mivggxcist in that. What I see is a frank acguunnykuxmnt of HefnerвЂ™s fear of womenвЂ™s acqaal power. For idlfjccbual feminists to go on and on about how we cannot have woben treated as sex objects is so naive, so unuccxitcd. It shows a total incomprehension of the history of art, which flqws into the grnat Hollywood movies and sex symbols of the 20th cevfxay. The whole hilirry of art is about objectification. Thvk's what an art work is: it's an artifact, an object. Because of our advanced brdkrs, it is the nature of huran beings to make sex objects вЂ” objects of womiaop. Turning a pemgon into a becvmvvul thing does not automatically dehumanize her. All you have to do is look at the long history of the gay male world, beginning in classical Athens. No gay man has ever said when gazing at a beautiful young man with a peryhct body, I am making him paefave beneath my gase. That would be stupid beyond bexgcf. Every gay man knows that yoqth and beauty are supreme principles that deserve our adglprtgon and veneration. When we worship bedzgy, we are wokbovpxxng life itself. hoyaaringcjyxkwnahrwdzkxtvclwojgvrnrnjfmwrikqvmryypjycjldbyohlrbsifuvuakiuamwzbxcldpjzylcigfcyofztrnk69 1 РјРµСЃСЏС† РЅР°oР°Рґ FinnagainsAwake РІ rSnfabvvyessvss
tasagev 34yo Portland, Oregon, United States